by Bruce Webb, Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 01:23:23 PM EST
(cross posted at dKos and in slightly altered form at Angry Bear)
Prince of Darkness Denies Own Existence
"There is no such thing as a neoconservative foreign policy," Perle informed the gathering, hosted by National Interest magazine. "It is a left critique of what is believed by the commentator to be a right-wing policy."
Pure bullshit of course. Another laughable quote and two documents to prove it.
He is simply trying to airbrush the PNAC (the Project for a New American Century) out of history. Sorry Dick not everything went down the Memory Hole.
by nixau, Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:46:42 AM EDT
On MTP today the Democrats rose to the occasion with a thoughtful and restrained analysis of Iraq. Until today I have never heard of Joe Sestak or Tom Andrews for that matter, and I was thinking why did they get these B list dems to counter the likes of Tom Delay and Richard Perle. But what I saw from these men was one of the most cogent arguments for redeployment yet. In the face of a constant barrage of "aiding and abetting the enemy, helping the terrorists, wanting to surrender" comments from DeLay and Perle Sestak and Andrews delivered their message in with undeniable skill.
On This Week Pat Leahy stung his counterpart Cornyn and served the ball right into the Bush admins court when he said he was sick of meeting with White House officials and having their statements later turn out to be false, so he would subpoena Carl Rove to get answers. Schumer also said as much on MTP and they both are tenacious lawyers who will get some accountability from the slippery lawbreakers in the White House.
I heard Cenk on "the Young Turks" saying how frustrated he was that the dems were weak, and his partner said they suffered from "balzhiemers," but just because they don't take the impeachment tack doesn't mean they are weak. We have Murtha, we have Webb, we have Kerry, Murphy, Boxer, and now Sestak. Weak my ass.
by Aaron Banks, Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:49:14 AM EST
Read the entire post...
It is when they feature neocon "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle making professional and often personal attacks on other Republicans. Take the words he had for the last two Secretaries of State:
Colin Powell was a disaster. He never liked the president's policies. He did almost nothing to get them implemented. Condi [former head of the National Security Council and now Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice] was in way over her head from the beginning, and the president gave much too much weight to her views.
I have a hard time accepting the normative judgments of a mastermind of the Iraq War. His stronger point may be the inherent unfairness that the people who made foreign policy in the Bush Administration - Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Cheney, etc - were considered unfit (read: crazy wingnuts) for public consumption. That left comparative "moderates" like Powell, Rice, the President and, hell, Laura Bush in 2004 to go out and sell a dangerous foreign policy based on the neoconservative world view. Perle may finally be fed up with having been the man behind the curtain, destined to be ignored. It appears that in addition to being a terrible wonk, Perle also wanted to be the hack who sold the ideas and received attention and praise attention and praise from the President and the American people in exchange. And it wouldn't be an interview with a bitter, neocon if he didn't brazenly lie about WMD:
Saddam is gone, and I think that is a good thing. He was a menace. It is very popular now to suggest that because we didn't find WMD, he wasn't the threat. What we didn't find in truth was stockpiles of WMDs. He certainly had the capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons again when he wanted to do so, and so I believe he was a threat, and I think we had the right to respond to that threat.You can't operate on the basis of what you know later. You've got to operate on the basis of what you know then.
by Vermonter, Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 10:43:24 AM EDT
[Crossposted at What's the Point?]
(By the way, I just want to mention that I'm aware that this has been written about before, especially on Daily Kos. But, I don't recall seeing it here at MyDD, and if so, I think it was kind of buried with all the Lamont excitement).
I've been feeling particularly humorless of late.
What with all the disgusting political machinations by the GOP, trying to subvert the Lamont victory by tying it to the absurd argument that "some" (read: a majority of Americans) don't get that America is under threat of terrorism, while senior Bush administration officials were fully aware of the pending public disclosure of the British terror plot.
And the "kill them all" rhetoric is really getting to me, too.
I've been meaning to write about the neo-con "Clean Break" strategy, but hadn't gotten riled up enough to do so. But, with all this shameless bluster, and Randi Rhodes pointing out yesterday that Sidney Blumenthal is making some noise about it now, I want to help in my small way to at least get the term "clean break" listed a bit more in the news aggregators.
Maybe many of you are already familiar with it, but if not, you should be...
Cuz, well, it's essentially the official roadmap of the "kill them all" strategy...
Blumenthal writes (my emphasis)...